994 
In any case presumably the negotiating authority and the details 
of international organization and negotiation would remain with the 
Department of State in the final analysis. 
Mr. Kerrirn. We find that insofar as fishing interests are concerned, 
the State Department, although it has been better in recent years, 
has not. been too cognizant of our problems vis-a-vis the Russians and 
othre vessels off our New England shoreline. They might have been 
more attentive had there been in existence, a prestigious agency 
such as NOAA rather than the Bureau of Commerical Fisheries. 
On page 14 you state: 
We should note that these recommendations as well as other Commission 
proposals are being reviewed by the Administration. 
Who in the administration is reviewing these proposals now ? 
Dr. Froson. Well, the National Council has had a continuing exami- 
nation of various of these proposals since the Commission report came 
out. As you know, there was some reconstitution of the Cuncil’s struc- 
ture with the new administration and various of the proposals are be- 
ing looked at by the new structure. 
Mr. Kerrn. You are not referring to the Ash Commission ? 
Dr. Froscu. No; this would be separate from the Ash Commission 
which is looking only at the organizational part. 
Mr. Kerru. And it is fair to say that the agencies affected are re- 
viewing them as they relate to their operations ? 
Dr. Froscu. Oh, yes. 
Mr. Kerrn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Rocers (presiding). Mr. Secretary, it 1s good to see you before 
the committee again, and you, too, General. We appreciate your being 
here. I am glad to see that a man with whom this committee has dealt 
greatly is here with you, the oceanographer of the Navy, Admiral 
Waters, with whom this committee has dealt in work with 
oceanography. 
In your statement you have raised some flags, but not many as such. 
You said it wouldn’t hurt if the data center were changed as long as 
it serves its function. Also I believe you said that maybe instrumenta- 
tion, the testing, it would not be hurtful to change that. 
As to the Coast Guard you want to make sure that it has its mili- 
tary functions delineated. You are not much in favor, as I understand 
it, of NACO. You think an interagency setup would be preferable be- 
cause you don’t give the constituent agencies a direct voice but simply 
an observed position. 
I think really the Commission’s idea on the advisory committee was 
to bring in the outside people and to have an outside view where it 
would not be dominated by the agencies and I think your fears are 
not well founded regarding the assumption that it would necessarily 
direct all of the programs. 
_ It would simply be an advisory body to see what is happening to the 
civilian effort, the private sector, as well as governmental effort. I 
think that was the idea of the Commission report and in reading that 
again Iam substantiated as to its idea in that field. 
The most that I see that you are concerned with is whether we should 
have a new agency that would report to the President in effect. whether 
there would be sufficient coordination. This seems to me to be one of 
your great concerns, and you bring that out on page 5 that you do feel: 
